In 1923, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the major Christian denomination in Eastern Europe,
decided to update its calendar.
This decision caused a significant amount of distress among the church's members
because it was felt that changing the date of Easter
was breaking a millennia-old tradition for no good theological reason.
Consequently, the Eastern Orthodox Church split into two groups,
the new calendarists who accepted the new calendar
and the old calendarists who stuck to the old calculation of Easter.
Each group branded the others as heretics
and refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of each other's leadership,
seemingly breaking the church in two.
To this day, the split remains very real for those in Eastern Europe,
although the divide has softened in recent years.
Hey everyone, my name is Aidan and I'm a member of the congregation here at St Paul's.
I want to start off with that fun little historical story
because interestingly, in the last week,
the concept of a split or schism in the church is a very relevant one.
As just this week, announcements of a new diocese of the Southern Cross
created headlines like Australian-Anglican Church splits
in the Sydney Morning Herald and the ABC.
This decision has come from disagreements between Christians around Australia
over the blessing of same-sex marriages.
And if you've got questions about it,
I'd recommend having a chat to our senior minister, Steve,
or watching the video he made this week,
which should have been sent out if you're on the mailing list.
But what a coincidence then that this of all weeks,
we're scheduled to look at Romans 14,
a passage that wants to answer a surprisingly very relevant question.
What do we do when Christians disagree?
The Bible's answer to this question is probably not what you'd expect
given the quarrelsome and curmudgeonly history of the Christian church.
But before we get to that answer, we need a bit of context.
So let me pray before we get started.
Heavenly Father, as we come to look at Romans 14 today,
let our hearts be open, our minds be willing to change,
and our spirits be eager to hear the gospel.
Amen.
If this is your first time joining us here for our Roman series,
or if you need a bit of a reminder of where we've been,
we're reading through Paul the Apostle's letter to the Roman church,
which isn't so much a letter as a deep dive into Christian thinking
on God, humanity, and the law.
Now, Paul hadn't actually met the Roman church he was writing to,
but he knew of them through friends who had visited Rome.
And the news he was getting was a bit troubling.
There was a divide beginning to form in the Roman church.
Christians and Rome had split into two camps,
based on a disagreement not over marriage or money,
but over meat.
If you look back at your Bibles with me,
Paul outlines this debate in verse 2 of chapter 14.
I'll go to the other one.
One person's faith allows them to eat anything,
but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
Apparently, there were two groups of the Roman church at this time.
Those who thought that it was wrong for Christians to eat meat,
known as the weak,
and there were Christians that thought they should be able to eat
whatever they want, regardless of where it came from,
which Paul labels the strong.
Now, this isn't a fight you'd find in many churches around Australia today,
but the pattern of this disagreement is something that has been replicated
in thousands, if not millions, of church throughout history.
On one side, those with a firm belief that some particular practice is wrong,
in this case eating meat,
look down upon others as less committed followers of Christ.
On the other hand, believers who think that the practice is fine to do,
i.e. are fine with eating meat,
show contempt towards their dissenting brothers and sisters,
viewing them as pedantic and needlessly judgmental.
So from disagreement on a theological question,
real problems can start to occur,
where otherwise healthy relationships are poisoned by bitterness,
judgment and contempt.
And it's into this context that Paul gives his answer
to the very relevant question.
What do we do when Christians disagree?
Paul's answer?
Practice acceptance, not judgment.
Have a look at verse 6 with me.
Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord,
for they give thanks to God.
And whoever abstains does so to the Lord and give thanks to God.
Rather than engaging in this feedback loop of negativity and animosity,
Paul offers up a radical new way of relating to each other,
a policy of acceptance that leaves judgment up to God.
Now there's a lot of nuance in Paul's plan
for resolving a conflict in the Roman church,
but throughout verses 6 to 8,
Paul keeps repeating his core idea.
Whatever you do, do it for the Lord.
If you've been a Christian for a while,
this might not seem particularly surprising to you.
A fundamental part of the Christian faith
is giving everything in your life over to Jesus.
But Paul reminds us here that
this doesn't just change how we relate to God,
it also changes how we relate to each other.
Who are you to judge somebody else's servant?
To their own master's servants stand or fall,
says Paul in verse 4.
And again in verse 10.
You then, why do you judge your brother or sister?
Why do you treat them with contempt?
For we will all stand before God's judgment.
Paul is telling the Roman church,
get out of God's chair.
If everything I do as a Christian is for God,
then I am a servant of God,
and I have no right to do God's job for him,
especially in the case of judging humanity.
Most importantly, if I see a fellow servant of God,
I have no right to judge my brother or sister
on whether they're serving God correctly.
Only the one they're serving can determine that.
I have no right to judge my fellow servant
because judgment is the Lord's alone.
All I can do in the meantime
is try and get along with my brother or sister
and try and work together to serve our Lord
in the best way we can.
For example, let's meet Alison and Ben.
Alison thinks that eating food in church
is totally fine,
since God made food for us to enjoy
and the building in which we meet
isn't particularly special.
On the other hand,
Ben thinks it's unbiblical to eat in church
because it's the building we dedicate
to worshipping God
and we should treat it with respect.
That's a pretty significant divide
between Alison and Ben,
and if Alison ever brings a sandwich into church,
then one day there might be some real tension,
some conflict,
and potentially even arguments breaking out.
But if both Alison and Ben
follow Paul's policy of acceptance over judgment,
Ben can accept that Alison is serving God
how she sees best,
and Alison can accept that Ben is serving God
how he sees best.
And both can trust that God will be the one to judge,
and so there's no need for an argument.
Instead, we're able to accept one another's differing beliefs
without breaking community.
But like lots of things,
replacing judgment with acceptance
is much easier said than done.
When someone turns up to church wearing something
or talking about something
or doing something we think is wrong,
how can we act biblically in that moment?
I think it's helpful to understand
some of the emotions that cause judgment.
And in my admittedly limited experience,
a significant amount of Christian judgment
seems to come from genuine worry.
Now, I'm only 24 years old.
I haven't experienced all of what life's got to offer.
I, you know,
don't have many deep insights into the human condition.
But even from this vantage point,
I can see that judgment doesn't often spring
from mean-spirited or malicious churchgoers.
In fact, in many circumstances,
experiences of judgment within the Christian community
come from one believer
being genuinely worried about the faith of another,
based on external assumptions about their life.
We have a sense that if someone isn't serving God
as best they could,
they have a deeply held belief that we know to be wrong,
potentially their faith is at risk.
And they need to be made aware of their mistake
as soon as possible.
Because we genuinely care about them
as our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
But if that's you,
if you are someone who feels called
to take that sort of action,
the challenge in this passage
is actually to entrust that job to God.
Let the Lord take care of judging their faith,
because ultimately,
He is the one who maintains and sustains it.
Don't stop caring about your church family,
and by no means,
don't stop checking in on how they're going with Jesus.
But we need to stop worrying about the strength
of each other's faith based on what we do and don't do.
Judging from assumptions and guesswork
rather than genuine conversation.
And start learning instead to accept one another,
even if the way you live for Jesus
is different to the way I do.
I think Paul sums it up best in verse 19.
Rather than worry about judgment,
make every effort to do what leads to peace
and mutual edification.
So then,
in this new happy community of acceptance,
does this mean we should just accept
all practices of our fellow believers,
regardless of what it is?
Well,
no.
Paul's policy of acceptance in Romans 14,
its specific policy meant for a specific set of issues,
which calls us to make a careful distinction
between gospel issues and disputable issues.
Let's have a look at verse 1.
Accept the one whose faith is weak
without quarreling over disputable matters.
Ah,
so there's the qualification.
Disputable matters.
Paul's policy is specifically for disputable matters.
I think that'd be a really good phrase
to keep in the front of your head
because it's going to be a really important one.
What is a disputable matter?
Well,
let's start with the Bible itself.
Rather than disputable matters,
your translation might have opinions
or doubtful issues
or,
in the King James Version,
doubtful disputations.
These are different attempts to translate
the Greek word
dialogismoi.
Now,
full disclosure,
I don't know biblical Greek,
but after doing some research,
a common consensus among theologians
like John Stott,
Kent Hughes,
and Tim Keller
is that the word refers to matters of practice
about which God has not specifically spoken.
Keller explicitly translated it
as meaning matters of conscience,
which he and the other theologians
take to mean as an action
which God has neither clearly forbidden
nor clearly commanded.
So the policy of acceptance
above disagreement
applies to practice
about which the Bible
is unclear
and ambiguous.
So,
lots of things.
The Bible only has so many words
after all
and was written a long time
before social media ethics
became a popular topic.
But it can sometimes still be difficult
and controversial
to figure out
whether something,
whether a topic of debate
is disputable,
is a disputable issue
that you can agree
to disagree over
or something
that is non-disputable,
something that needs
to be resolved
before continuing
in community together.
To give us a bit of a hand
with this,
I borrowed some guidelines
written by a London preacher,
Dick Lucas,
who outlines three principles
for identifying
a disputable issue.
Number one,
the principles of the matter
apply to behaviour
or to practice,
but not to doctrine.
Lucas' justification for this
is that Paul has just spent
11 chapters
outlining clear teaching
on the proper Christian beliefs
and worldview.
He's not suddenly
in Romans 14
inviting Christians
to challenge
what he's written.
Paul is addressing disagreements
over the way
people should practically
respond to this message.
Number two,
for a matter to be disputable,
there must be no
clear, relevant commands.
The Bible is God's
absolute,
final,
authoritative word
on the behaviour
that is pleasing
and acceptable to him.
The instructions in it
aren't optional extras
we get to choose
if we want to follow
when we become a Christian.
Within the clear boundaries
God has set,
we're free to debate
which is the better way
to live for God
and accept when
our fellow sister
or brother disagrees.
But if God has already
made his stance clear
on an issue,
who are we
to contradict
what he said,
even if we feel
uncomfortable
or angry
at his word?
Yet if there isn't
a biblical command
about a certain practice,
then that matter
might just be disputable.
And finally,
number three,
all...
Waiting for it,
there you go.
All issues are disputable
except gospel issues.
What Lucas means by this
is that Christians
have the true
and real freedom
to have different opinions
without suffering
exclusion or judgment.
Except if those opinions
modify the gospel.
If the gospel,
i.e.
faith in Jesus'
death and resurrection
becomes not enough
to achieve salvation,
if something additional
is required to be saved
and enter God's kingdom,
whether some practice,
behaviour or belief,
then that matter
is not disputable.
To be a Christian
is to be a believer
in the gospel.
And as Paul says
in Galatians 1 verse 9,
if anyone is preaching
to you a gospel
other than what you've accepted,
let them be under God's curse.
So enough theory.
Let's have a go at this.
Let's have a go
at figuring out
whether an issue
is disputable or not.
Can we agree
to disagree on it
or does it need
to be resolved
for continuing
in community?
Now I'm not looking
to figure out whether...
I'm not looking
to figure out
what is right
and wrong on this issue.
That's important.
But it's also important
to know what type
of issue this is.
So imagine Ben
from earlier
has turned up to church
and said,
all Christians
must wear shoes
while in church.
No bare feet allowed.
Anyone who comes
into church
needs to put on shoes
before coming
to worship God.
I want you to turn
to the person next to you
and have a chat
about whether
wearing shoes in church
is a disputable issue.
If you're at home,
turn to the people
next to you
or have a good think
on this topic.
And I want you to try
and justify your position
either using the guidelines
that will be on the screen
or other thoughts
you might have.
Since it's a bit
of a bigger topic,
I'll give you
three, four minutes
to have a chat about it
and then we'll come back.
So have a chat.
All right.
Let's come back.
For the record,
I think wearing shoes
in church is a disputable issue
and something we can agree
to disagree on
because it's about practice.
Because one,
it's about practice.
Two, as far as I know,
there's nothing specific
in the Bible
to the covering of feet
in church
and it doesn't add
or take away
from the gospel message.
But I think your instincts
on that question
may have highlighted something
about where you lie
on something I'm calling
the disputable scale.
On one end of the spectrum
is the tendency to mark
everything as disputable,
often associated
with more liberal theology.
This is where every issue,
no matter how big,
small or central
to the gospel,
can be smoothened over
by some magic church policy,
even if it means compromising
on the central message
of the gospel.
While on the other end
is fundamentalism,
where nothing is disputable
and those who don't follow
the exact same practices
and behaviours of you
aren't real Christians.
Now it's unlikely
you're exactly at
either end of these spectrums,
but all of us
are somewhere
on this scale,
whether you're more likely
to prioritise tolerance
over truth
or conventions
over accuracy.
Now I'm a conflict avoider,
so my instinct is to say
we can agree to disagree
and avoid a hard conversation.
But if you're someone
who really cares
about traditions,
your instinct might be to say
that the way
we've always done things
is the best
and maybe the only way
to do things here.
Either way,
whatever side
of the scale you're on,
we all need to focus
on the truth
that can only come
from the Bible.
Making sure
that our claims
of whether things
are disputable or not
are solely based
on its truth,
not on our own feelings
or what we know
as normal.
So before claiming
something is a gospel issue,
take a moment
to think about
whether the problem
is disputable or not.
Because if it isn't,
then wise,
careful,
and considerate action
needs to be taken.
And if it is disputable,
then we need to follow
Paul's policy
of acceptance
over judgment.
So given that we've
talked through the differences
between disputable
and non-disputable issues,
what are some disputable issues
that we here
at Chatswood
are likely to face?
What are some
disputable issues
that are relevant
to us in this building?
Well, as much as it's been
an important topic
in the last week,
Paul's policy
of acceptance
over judgment
is always going
to be significant
for St. Paul's
because as Steve said
at the beginning
of the year,
we are striving
to be a supernatural
community.
One where our community
isn't just made up
of people who are
similar to each other,
but a multicultural one.
One that is both
diverse and unified
at the same time.
But that's a challenging
aim.
Because with many
different cultures
coming together,
there are going to be
some big differences
about what we view
as acceptable
and unacceptable
behaviours.
What type of clothes
is it okay to wear?
What does respecting
your parents look like?
What does hospitality mean?
What does church look like?
What type of songs
do we sing?
What do we expect
of our leaders?
How do we do communion?
What language
do we read the Bible in?
With people coming
to St. Paul's
from the multitude
of cultures around Chatswood,
it seems inevitable
that we'll face conflict
over the right way
to live as a Christian.
Indeed, I'm sure
there have already
been many disagreements
over church practice
in the years
that St. Paul's
has been going.
So how are we
still here together
as a church
despite these arguments
and how can we
make sure
that St. Paul's
remains both diverse
and unified?
Well, Paul's
answer is simple.
Don't be a stumbling block
for God's good work.
Have a look at
verse 20 with me.
Do not destroy
the work of God
for the sake of food.
All food is clean,
but it is wrong
for a person
to eat anything
that causes
someone else
to stumble.
Remember the two groups
I mentioned earlier?
Those that thought
eating meat was sinful
and those that thought
it was fine?
Well, Paul's clearly
in the second group
believing that Jesus
has made all things clean.
But he goes on
to say here
that even though
he knows he is right,
membership in the
kingdom of God
is not first and foremost
about being proven correct.
No, the priority
for those living for God
is caring for others.
See, we've already
talked about the general
case of what to do
if two Christians
disagree,
but we're talking about
the specific case
where you know
what's right
and you see someone
doing something
you disagree with.
Realistically,
if you view
a fellow believer
doing something
you know is wrong,
your instinct won't be
oh, they're just doing
things differently to me.
Your instinct will be
that's wrong.
Now, Australian society
is very clear
on what to do
in a situation like this.
It only takes one look
at Twitter or Facebook
to see that if I am right,
it's my responsibility
to prove myself right.
Get the other person
to acknowledge
their own wrongness
and then if they refuse
to change their mind
immediately,
I should ridicule them
for being wrong
or at least say something
along the lines
of typical liberal snowflake
or typical right-wing nutjob.
The Bible's answer
on the other hand
is radically different.
Think of the needs
of the other person first.
Do what's best
for the faith
of your brother or sister
even if it means
limiting your own liberty
or accepting actions
you don't agree with.
Don't jeopardise
their faith
or their connection
to God's church.
What if by doing
something you know
to be right
which they view
as wrong,
they become confused
about what God wants
and thus cause
to sin in other areas?
Or what if by calling
them out on a practice
you know to be wrong
but they believe
is right,
you tempt them
to unnecessary bitterness
and malice?
This isn't to say
that we should abstain
from upsetting anyone
in our church
lest the church
become whim
to the subject
of grumpy Christians,
but Paul is specifically
talking here
about issues
that will cause
the other person
to doubt
their relationship
to Jesus.
Here's some quick examples.
If you believe
that all forms
of music
are fine for church
but your Christian brother
is only able
to use one style
of worship
to praise God,
you should do
what is best
for your brother
and limit your liberty
for the sake
of their communion
with God.
On the other hand,
if you think
it's inappropriate
for Christians
to wear immodest clothes,
worrying about
the faith
of your Christian sister
who wears things
you deem indecent,
worry,
like help
their situation?
Or will doing it
behind their back
cause them
to feel judged,
guilty,
wrong for this congregation
and maybe wrong
for Jesus?
When it comes
to disputable issues,
put the faith
of your fellow believer
first over any need
to prove yourself right.
Accept them first
as your faithful
Christian sibling
and don't cause them
to stumble in that faith
because as Paul says
in verse 21,
it is better not
to eat meat
or drink wine
or do anything else
that will cause
your brother or sister
to fall.
So how do we take steps
towards this new
supernatural community
of acceptance?
Well, I think there's
two clear takeaways.
Firstly,
think very hard
before claiming something
is a non-disputable
gospel issue.
Often when we see
someone doing something
outside of what we know
to be normal,
it can feel like
a massive issue
because they're
disrespecting the church.
But before reacting
on instinct
and lashing out
in judgment or worry,
think back to those
guidelines for if
something is disputable
or not.
And if it is a
disputable matter,
then now is the time
to practice acceptance,
especially if you
disagree with them.
Remember what Paul
writes to the Roman
church.
Who are you to judge
someone else's servant?
Secondly,
remember that a church
of many cultures
is not going to be
a comfortable place.
To borrow another
Steve phrase,
we need to embrace
shared discomfort.
Paul encouraged
the Christians in Rome
to put away
their own wants
and desires,
put away the things
that make you feel
normal and comfortable.
If it means someone
else will be able
to continue in
fellowship with God
and with his church.
Holding unity
and diversity together
means doing church
differently to how
you've always done it
and doing it
with Christians
who do not live
the same way
you do.
It means making
changes to suit
those in the minority
because otherwise
it isn't truly
a shared discomfort.
And most importantly,
it means having
an accepting attitude
towards difference.
For some Pauls
to grow
in a multicultural
suburb,
it needs you
to commit
to acceptance.
Regardless
of what Christian
walks through
those doors,
regardless of
how they live,
regardless of
what they think,
regardless of
the disputable issues
where you disagree,
you personally
need to commit
to wholeheartedly
loving and accepting
them as your
fellow believer.
This is a big
and challenging task,
but it's the one
Jesus fulfilled
when he loved us.
And I pray
it's the one
we'll be able
to commit to.